One man’s trash is another man’s treasure, or in this case, another man’s electricity. At the waste-to-energy plant in Spokane, 800 tons of trash is burned daily and converted to energy, enough to heat 13,000 homes. You may think that this is a good method of handling our trash – taking something we throw out and converting it into something we can use. But, the plant has been targeted by the new Department of Ecology’s Clean Air Rule and carbon tax advocates.

In the Spokane area, which struggles with consistently higher unemployment than the Puget Sound region, the waste-to-energy plant also helps reduce the cost of trash service. The inclusion of a facility designed to eliminate waste and reduce greenhouse gas emissions poses a problem. The cost of complying with the new carbon regulation or carbon tax will be passed on to customers, which adds to the regressive nature of these proposals. This isn’t the only instance where organizations employing environmentally friendly technologies are being targeted. In Moses Lake, REC Silicon, which produces the silicon materials necessary for solar plates, is also included on the state’s list of large emitters.

It makes sense to convert our trash into energy. Instead of making these technologies more expensive, they should be finding ways to expand their use.

Saltchuk, one of the largest privately-held companies in Washington, employs approximately 7500 people. Through its family of companies, Saltchuk provides air cargo, domestic and international shipping and logistics, marine services, nationwide and Alaska trucking & logistics, and petroleum distribution.

Like all Washington companies, Saltchuk is committed to operating in a way that minimizes impacts to the environment. Specifically, they’ve promoted clean technology and alternative fuels that have set new standards in reducing carbon emissions and improving air quality in the transportation industry. These are the types of investments that are driving low-carbon innovation in every industry sector.

Here are a couple of examples:

The Isla Bella, an LNG-fueled container ship developed by TOTE Maritime.

TOTE, one of Saltchuk’s companies, is operating the first two natural-gas powered containerships in the U.S. maritime industry. The new vessels are the most advanced and environmentally responsible of their kind, reducing vessel sulfur emissions (SOx) by 97 percent, particulate matter (PM) by 98 percent, nitrogen oxide (NOx) by 60 percent, and carbon dioxide (CO2) by 72 percent, while providing safe, reliable cargo deliveries. The carbon reductions from one of these vessels is equivalent to removing 7,850 cars from the road.

In addition to new ships, TOTE is converting its existing fleet to run on natural gas. TOTE’s two Orca Class vessels serving the Alaska trade will be converted with minimal time out of service and return as the most environmentally sophisticated ships in the nation. As a result of the conversion, the Orcas will set new standards for environmental responsibility by reducing SOx emission by 100 percent, PM by 91 percent, NOx by 90 percent, and CO2 by 35 percent.

On land, Saltchuk is reducing emissions through Interstate Distributor, a trucking company it operates. Interstate made history in August 2014 when it became the first national freight carrier based in the Pacific Northwest to “go green,” adding 20 new liquefied natural gas (LNG) tractors to its fleet. An EPA SmartWay member since the programs’ inception in 2004, Interstate consistently monitors and improves fuel efficiency and the environmental performance of its fleet.

While Washington regulators continue to focus on top-down, one-size-fits-all regulatory regimes for reducing carbon, our companies continue the leadership they’ve been showing for a long time. Business owners share Washington’s values of environmental protection and are committed to finding ways to reduce emissions. That’s why Washington’s combined carbon emissions from the commercial and industrial sector are now below the levels they were in 1990, despite a doubling of the state’s economy.

If regulators were interested in joining them in this effort, they could learn a lot about how innovation and efficiencies are already reducing Washington’s carbon dioxide emissions.

Proponents’ standard message around a carbon regulation – whether it’s a new cap and trade system or the Department of Ecology’s new Carbon Action Rule (CAR) – is to identify a short list of “big polluters” by name and hold them up as the target. But, as Ecology acknowledges, 75 percent of the carbon emissions covered under CAR will not be from this list of companies. They will be from consumers of transportation fuel (gas and diesel, primarily) and natural gas. In other words, Washington’s small businesses, workers, and families will pay for most of the new rule’s costs. Not their list of “big polluters.”

Why is this? Under CAR, distributors of natural gas and petroleum are required to pay for the carbon emitted by their customers. CAR provides these distributors three ways to pay for the carbon emissions of their customers: through reducing their own emissions on-site, investing in carbon-reducing mitigation projects (referred to as “project reductions”), or buying allowances from the State of California or the Northeast’s RGGI (referred to as “market reductions”). In reality, there’s only one way for the distributors to comply and that’s through market reductions.

Let’s start with the on-site reduction option. Distributors of fuel and natural gas don’t emit carbon because the energy combustion is performed by their customers – i.e. on the stoves of restaurant kitchens or gas tanks of parents running kids to soccer practice. So, there’s no “on-site” emissions for distributors to reduce. In section 3.2.3 of CAR’s cost-benefit analysis, Ecology acknowledges that “Some covered parties—such as natural gas distributors—may have little or no options for on-site compliance, but may still combine project-based and market reductions.” In section 3.6 of the cost-benefit analysis, in a discussion of the transfer of costs, it’s acknowledged that on-site reductions are unlikely “because it assumes fuel producers, importers, and distributors will incur costs for internal actions to reduce GHG emissions, but these parties inherently do not have a mechanism with which to comply on-site” (italics added).

Project-based emission allowances are earned when a company finances a project designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The CAR, however, creates an extremely narrow band of eligible projects. Essentially, the only allowable investments would be projects based in Washington (Sections 110 and 180 of CAR) or projects approved under California’s system (Section 190: livestock projects, mine methane, and ozone depleting substances). This creates a very small pool of potential project reductions, making market reductions the primary way distributors will comply. With 75 percent of emissions covered by CAR emanating from consumers of gasoline, diesel and natural gas (i.e. every Washington citizen), this compliance cost will be passed along in the form of higher prices.

We know that the overwhelming majority of CAR’s costs will be borne by consumers. Bill Drumheller of Ecology made this clear during a November 18, 2015 webinar (time code 1:15) in advance of the rule being published:

“Roughly three quarters of the emissions we’re talking about in this program are what I will call indirect emissions – these are emissions associated with transportation fuel that’s produced and used in Washington and the natural gas that’s supplied here in Washington.

“The regulated party doesn’t have the direct ability to influence up and down how those emissions are used. In those cases it’s the end user – the driver or the homeowner who heats their house…

“This is three-quarters of the emissions. We’re talking about a lot of emissions. And for these emissions we need to find emissions reduction projects and tap into external carbon markets to get the reductions necessary.”

At a speech to the Association of Washington Business on Tuesday, Jan. 19, the Governor emphasized that it is possible to have a strong economy while striving toward a cleaner environment. We agree. The two are not mutually exclusive; Washington is a perfect example. Business Insider came out with its annual rankings of state economies, and proudly, Washington is ranked #1. The rankings took into consideration average wages, unemployment rates, wage growth rates and more. At the same time, we are a leader in reducing carbon emissions. In many rankings, Washington sits in the top 10 of all states. A combination of forward-thinking policies and innovation has reduced our carbon emissions below what they were in 1990 and created a clear and downward trend into the future.

But what kind of economy does Washington want in the future? Do we want to emphasize manufacturing job growth and all of the higher-income and economic multipliers that go along with that? Or do we want to emphasize the service sector?

The cap and trade plan that the Governor pushed last year would have created a carbon market and tied it to California, which has a statewide carbon cap and trade system. Let’s look at their progress: Manufacturing has grown at a dismal 2%, merely a third of the national average of 6%. If Washington adopts Gov. Inslee’s carbon pricing proposals, companies looking to expand or move into a new market will simply decide to go elsewhere. Here again, we see this play out in our neighbor to the south. In 2013, California only had 46 manufacturing operations start or expand. Texas had 253. That’s a lot of high-paying jobs for companies and their suppliers that are left behind because of policies that artificially increase energy prices.

According to the LA Times, “Manufacturing is the classic path to higher paying jobs for less-educated workers. On average, manufacturing workers make 8.4% higher wages each week than those in all other industries combined, according to a 2012 Brookings Institution study.” In an era of high economic anxiety for workers, we shouldn’t be punishing the manufacturers who are providing the living-wage jobs that sustain our middle class.

Yet today, the Governor still repeated claims that there is no evidence that a top-down regulatory scheme that raises energy prices on all citizens will not have adverse economic impacts. I guess that depends on how you define economic success. A state that chooses to de-emphasize manufacturing jobs for its citizens is limiting economic opportunity for families. That’s not a policy Washington should embrace. We’re proud of our Washington history of ingenuity; let’s not go down the same rocky path as California.

Businesses don’t just plan for tomorrow. They plan for the next 5, 10, 20 years. And, looking to the future, forward looking companies are exploring new possibilities for renewable energy. These companies acknowledge that climate change is a reality and that innovation is the best way to mitigate its effects while remaining profitable.

In fact, here in Washington state, Alaska Airlines is leading the way. Five years ago, Alaska recognized the potential of renewable jetfuels and became the first U.S. airline to fly multiple commercial flights using a biofuel created from used cooking oil. This test wasn’t done alone. The airline is part of the Northwest Advanced Renewables Alliance (NARA), led by Washington State University, with funds from the U.S. Department of Agrilculture. NARA is comprised of more than 22 partners, all searching for ways to use post-harvest forest residuals for renewable energy. After trees are harvested, the ‘waste’ can be converted into biomass which can then be converted into energy. This continues a sustainable path by using the whole tree, not just the main log, for productivity.

The decision to investigate alternative fuels was not only spurred on by financial decisions, but also the desire to control carbon emissions. According to Joe Sprague, Alaska Airlines’ senior vice president of external relations, “Sustainable biofuels are a key to aviation’s future and critical in helping the industry and Alaska Airlines reduce its carbon footprint and dependency on fossil fuels.” In other words, the company cares about its future, and the future of the environment in which it operates.

Alaska continues to bet on the potential of renewables. In early January, the company announced its partnership with a Colorado-based company, Gevo, to purchase fuel derived from isobutanol, a type of plant-based alcohol. In December, Alaska and Boeing, in coordination with Seatac Airport, announced an effort to make it the first biofuel-friendly airport.

Alaska Airlines, and many others in our state, are looking for new ways to do business. Washington companies don’t need new top-down regulations to spur action. They’ve been demonstrating climate leadership from the ground up.

There is a misconception within our state that nothing has been done by the business community to reduce carbon emissions since 2008. However, there is a laundry list of ways in which many of Washington’s businesses have actually been leading the way to voluntary reduce their emissions. In fact, many of them have won awards from the Governor’s office or the EPA.

Below is a short list of some companies who have undertaken carbon reduction efforts:

ConAgra Foodswas presented with a Washington Energy Leaders Award in 2013 by Governor Inslee for its ongoing efforts to reduce its carbon footprint. Through its commitment to reducing waste headed to the landfill (where greenhouse gases are emitted), it has reduced its emissions by 7 percent with a goal of 20 percent by 2020.

In March, Seattle-founded UPS was named one of 16 organizations leading the way on climate issues by the EPA and recognized by the agency as one of six companies to receive the 2015 Climate Leadership award for “Excellence in Greenhouse Gas Management.”

Port Townsend Paper Corporation, working with the local Climate Action Committee, reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 60 percent over the past 10 years by reducing the use of fossil fuels, efficiency improvements and increased use of renewable and carbon neutral biomass.

Batdorf & Bronson of Olympia has built environmental consciousness into its business since it was founded in 1988. Batdorf powers office computers with rooftop solar panels, provides bicycles for employees to ride for in-town trips and commutes, and pays extra for fully compostable cups at its seven locations in Washington and Georgia. They were the nation’s first 100 percent green-powered coffee roaster.

Canyon Creek Cabinet Company in Monroe upgraded its 2006-era trucks with newer, cleaner models that are Clean Idle Certified. The company helped create the Kitchen Cabinet Manufacturers Association’s Environmental Stewardship Program and in 2006 was the first cabinet company awarded the ESP certificate for voluntarily going above and beyond to development environmentally friendly products.

Earth Friendly Products in Lacey has made green manufacturing a priority since 1967. The company switched to 100 percent renewable energy in 2010 and in 2013 achieved carbon neutrality at all five of its manufacturing facilities – avoiding emission of nearly 54 million pounds of carbon dioxide a year.

Family-owned Claar Wine Group’s vineyards and winery in Pasco are certified as sustainable by the Low-Input Viticulture and Enology program. The company cut its lighting energy use by 50 percent through a switch from metal-halide bulb lamps to T-5 bays.

Nucor Steel in Seattle is known for being the greenest steel mill not only in the country, but throughout the world. It was a first-adopter of energy-efficient technology and is operated using green power — hydroelectricity — giving it one of the lowest carbon footprints of any steel mill in the world. This dedication earned it a Leadership by Example award in 2012 from former Governor Gregoire.

Based in Tumwater, Cardinal Glass received a 2013 Washington Energy Leaders award for their innovations in energy efficiency with their glass products. Their highly insulated windows emit less heat than most so customers use less energy to heat their homes and businesses.

IEDS out of Spokane, installed electronic on-board recording devices in its trucks this year to allow the company to track real-time drive and vehicle performance information to optimize delivery routes. In two months, the company reduced engine idle time by 40 percent and increased mileage per gallon by 8 percent, decreasing fuel use by 3,780 gallons.

Spokane-based Avista Utilities is at the forefront of evaluating how a new battery technology can be used to improve power quality for customers while maximizing the economic value of hydropower and potentially optimizing the grid to accommodate wind and solar energy storage and use.

Alaska Airlines, a founding member of Sustainable Aviation Fuels Northwest, is a leader in exploring opportunities for the use of biofuel in commercial air travel.

Over the past 15 years, Inland Empire Paper Company has implemented carbon reduction strategies that have reduced the company’s footprint by 30,000 tons of carbon per year, lowered natural gas consumption by 77 percent and has developed a state-of-the-art algae-based water treatment technology.

Renton-based Shuttle Express converted its shuttle fleets to clean burning propane. This included the first in the nation F-550 bus conversion. All told, this reduces the company’s carbon footprint by 90 percent.

From 2007 to 2014, the Boeing Co. reduced its U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 9.3 percent while increasing production rates 50 percent. This achievement earned it a 2014 Climate Leadership Award from the Environmental Protection Agency.

Cascade Natural Gas, a utility based in Bothell, works with its customers to ensure energy efficiency. In both 2012 and 2014, they received Washington Energy Leaders awards. 7.42 million pounds of CO2 were mitigated in 2014 due to their programs and customers’ efforts.

SECO Development out of Renton worked with the Seahawks to reduce their emissions through sustainable design. They installed LED lighting, and 30% of their energy is provided by solar panels.

The Built Green program originated with the Home Builders Association of Kitsap County more than 20 years ago. The homes are designed to be energy efficient and exceed strict Washington State Energy Codes, Washington State Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality code and the Water Use Efficiency Standards.

This is merely a sample of the many companies who truly believe that being good stewards of the environment is the right thing to do. Contributing to and maintaining a clean environment is not just good, but it’s good for business.

The Northwest Power and Conservation Council recently released its seventh power plan for the region, concluding that carbon emissions will plummet while natural gas and energy efficiency drive a lower-cost, lower-carbon future.

The Council was formed by Congress in 1980 to develop and oversee regional power plans and fish and wildlife programs to balance the region’s energy and environment needs. The Council’s main task is to develop a 20-year electric power plan that will guarantee adequate and reliable energy at the lowest economic and environmental cost to the Northwest. The plan, updated every five years, covers the Bonneville Power Administration region of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and western Montana.

The group’s most recent modeling found that, even without additional carbon control policies, carbon dioxide emissions from the Northwest electricity generation system are forecast to go from about 55 million metric tons of CO2 in 2015 to around 34 million metric tons in 2035 – a decrease of 38 percent. This continues a clear trend we’ve seen over time. In Washington, CO2 emissions from the electric sector are currently 18 percent below 1990 levels, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Due to existing policy changes and innovation, it’s widely expected that Washington will already comply with EPA’s new Clean Power Plan requirements.

What’s contributing to this continued limit on carbon emissions? The projected decrease results from the retiring of the Boardman, North Valmy and Centralia coal plants by 2026, the use of existing natural gas-fired generation to replace them and the development of about 4,500 average megawatts of energy efficiency by 2035. After energy efficiency, according to the Council, new natural gas-fired generation is the most cost-effective resource option for the region in the near-term. The Council also concludes that the increased use of existing natural gas generation offers the lowest cost option for reducing regional carbon emissions. In other words, over the next 20 years our region’s electricity power generation is going to remain reliable, cost-effective and have much lower carbon output.

According to the Council’s model, the region as a whole could even comply with the EPA’s new Clean Power Plan under critical water conditions. This is a key conclusion since it means we’ll have sufficient low-carbon, low-cost electricity generation to meet demand even when the hydro system is lacking resources – something increasingly probable given the lack of water we’ve seen across the West in recent years.

The Northwest remains an attractive location for job creation due to its low-cost and low-carbon electricity – companies want to locate here and workers want to work here. On the eve of Governor Inslee’s trip to Paris for the United Nations Conference on Climate Change, it’s an opportunity for him to tout his own state’s carbon-reduction leadership. Rather than spending time focusing on complex, top-down regulatory schemes designed to drive up the cost of energy, leaders should find ways to encourage innovation and collaboration. If they do, Washington can make a great contribution to that discussion.

You can read the executive summary of the Northwest Power and Conservation Council plan here.

Is climate change causing more severe wildfires? It’s an allegation that many supporters of a new state cap-and-trade carbon tax are making to help their cause. But, scientists are casting doubt on the claim just as cap-and-trade supporters ramp up their claims that Washington’s wildfires are directly caused by our warming climate.

It’s an important discussion. In 2007, the National Science Foundation published a report estimating that California fires emitted 7.9 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in a one-week period – equivalent to 25 percent of the state’s monthly emissions from all fossil fuel burning throughout California and greater than the annual carbon emissions from all of Washington’s electricity generation.

When Gov. Jerry Brown (D-CA) held a recent press conference to tie the severity and frequency of California wildfires to climate change, he met stiff resistance from scientists (Gov. Brown’s link between climate change and wildfires is unsupported, fire experts say, LA Times, October 19, 2015). University of Colorado climate change specialist Roger Pielke called Brown’s allegations “noble-cause corruption.” He’s making unsupported claims about causation between climate change and wildfire in order to advance his policy prescriptions. “That is the nature of politics,” Pielke is quoted as saying, “but sometimes the science really has to matter.”

Much like Gov. Brown, Washington advocates for a new cap-and-trade tax plan are making unsupported claims in order to advance their cause.

More from scientists interviewed or sourced for the LA Times story:

A study published in August by a Columbia University team led by climatologist Park Williams concluded that global warming has indeed shown itself in California, by increasing evaporation that has aggravated the current drought. But Williams said his research, the first to tease out the degree to which global warming is affecting California weather, did not show climate change to be a major cause of the drought.

Even climate ecologists who describe a strong tie between fire frequency and weather say they cannot attribute that connection to phenomena beyond normal, multi-decade variations seen throughout California history.

“There is insufficient data,” said U.S. Forest Service ecologist Matt Jolly. His work shows that over the last 30 years, California has had an average of 18 additional days per year that are conducive to fire.

Here in Washington, noted scientist Cliff Mass has reached similar conclusions when it comes to the connection between wildfires and climate change.

The key question is are Washington’s forests going to store carbon or release it? According to the U.S. Forest Service, Washington stored 2.4 billion metric tons of CO2 in 2012 – the second highest total of any state. We can either manage our federal forests to maximize carbon storage and reduce the incidence of catastrophic wildfire, or we can experience future fires and the extreme pulses of CO2 they emit.

Even in a world impacted by climate change, scientists say, land management policies will have the greatest effect on the prevalence and intensity of fire. A “hands off” approach to active management of federal forests combined with a decade of fire suppression has created fuel for fires that can ignite at any time.

The tendency to make claims unsupported by data will, unfortunately, be a hallmark of any campaign to convince Washingtonians that adopting a cap-and-trade carbon tax is the only way to slow carbon emissions. But, it ignores history. We’ve all made tremendous progress in the last 25 years in reducing carbon emissions – in our businesses, families, farms, and government agencies. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington’s CO2 emissions are now below 1990 levels. Can more be done? Of course, and it should be. But, it will require more collaboration and fewer blunt instruments like the taxes on carbon being proposed.

Washington workers, farmers, families, and employers are united in the goal of reducing carbon emissions in our state. While we often differ on the best way to achieve this objective, our commitment is to engage productively with all Washingtonians on solutions.

On August 3rd, President Obama released the most ambitious carbon-reduction rule in U.S. history. In his words, it is “the single most important step that America has ever made in the fight against global climate change.” The Clean Power Plan aims to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation to 32 percent below 2012 levels by the year 2030, and it set state-by-state targets in order to accomplish this goal. Washington State’s goal is a 37 percent reduction over this time period. But because of its leadership in reducing carbon and our abundance of no- or low-carbon electricity, Washington will already meet its obligations under the new rule.

Why will Washington already comply with a standard that other states are sure to struggle to meet 15 years from now? The abundance of hydropower combined with the use of nuclear power, aggressive deployment of renewable energy, and low-carbon natural gas has given our state the 4th-lowest carbon-emitting electricity generation in the nation. And it’s on pace to get even lower. Washington’s last remaining coal plant is scheduled to phase out of service in 2020 and be shut down in 2025. The plant is the single-largest emitter of carbon dioxide in the state, and its removal from service will reduce Washington’s carbon footprint even further.

Washington is a national leader in the generation of renewable energy. The U.S. Department of Energy calculates that the state’s renewable energy represents 92 percent of its overall generation, which comes primarily from hydropower, wind and biomass. The American Wind Energy Association ranks Washington 9th in the nation for installed generating capacity from wind. The industrial sector in Washington has significantly reduced their carbon profile by using wood debris and other biomass to generate electricity at their plants. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, annual carbon emissions from Washington’s electric power are now 6.15 MMTCO2, below the 7.51 MMTCO2 emission levels we experienced in 1990. This is despite a 43 percent increase in population since 1990 and an economy that has more than doubled in size.

But there’s something broader and more fundamental at work. According to the Washington Department of Ecology, the state’s Greenhouse Gas emissions are merely 3 percentage points higher than the levels we saw in 1990. In 2008, Washington adopted a goal to reduce our Greenhouse Gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020, and we’re on track to meet that goal. Employers across the state embraced this challenge by investing heavily in plant efficiencies to reduce the carbon intensity of manufacturing and upgrading their buildings to reduce energy use. Washington’s industrial sector now emits 21 percent less carbon dioxide than it did in 1990.

State policies that establish goals and then partner with employers and Washington families to achieve them have proven to be extremely successful. They have allowed Washington residents in every corner of the state to act on their environmental values, but in a way that conforms to the unique needs of their family or business. Governor Inslee is advocating for rigid, top-down government solutions like his cap-and-trade tax plan and carbon cap rule through the Department of Ecology. At a time when these costly policies are being debated, it’s good to remind ourselves how much progress we’ve made as a state and the kinds of policies that have produced that success.

ConAgra foods serves as one of the largest food companies in the United States. If you enjoy products such as Orville Redenbacher’s popcorn, Bertolli pasta or Snack Packs, you’ve enjoyed a ConAgra Product. While ConAgra has manufacturing facilities and sales offices across the world, they have a main office right here in Kennewick. ConAgra believes that we must adapt to changing climate conditions, “Adapting to [it] is much more about what we do than what we say. We have to change how we operate in light of how the climate is changing around us,” said Marcella Thompson, director of sustainability in ConAgra Foods’ Environment, Health & Safety Department.

Washington’s ConAgra Lamb Weston (its potato processing arm) voluntarily joined the sustainable business movement in 2010. (In fact, the Northwest Food Processors Association, of which ConAgra is a member, has been a leader in reducing carbon emissions since 2008.) ConAgra set a goal of diverting 75 percent of its waste from landfills. Once food waste joins a landfill, it produces greenhouse gases. The company met the goal early on and decided to set a further goal of zero-waste-to-landfill. ConAgra accomplished its goal by recognizing facilities making progress toward waste reduction. Seven of the 13 Lamb Weston plants that earned the “Zero Waste Champion Award” are located in Washington.

Washington’s Lamb Weston plants have achieved a 99 percent waste diversion rate. These facilities owe this success to continued efforts by facility ‘Green Teams’ seeking opportunities for improvement strategies in reduction, recycling and diversion while also recognizing the value of recovered material as a potentially profitable product. These ‘Green Teams’ rely heavily on employee involvement, and in fact, award employees who suggest ways the company could reduce waste.

Lamb Weston’s environmental efforts serve as an example of how to create a positive impact in Washington for other businesses. As a result of its efforts, Lamb Weston has reduced its carbon emissions by more than 7% over the past few years and is working towards a 20% reduction by 2020. Lamb Weston’s actions have helped drive down CO2 emissions in Washington. According to the latest U.S. Environmental Protection Agency data, emissions from the Industrial sector are now 21% below 1990 levels.

This doesn’t sound like a business that is burying its head in its fields, so to speak. It is leading the way in producing a future with lower carbon emissions in Washington and throughout the country.

Washington businesses have been leading the way in carbon dioxide reduction for years, and it’s resulted in significant changes to the state’s Greenhouse Gas emissions profile. Washington emits less carbon dioxide today than it did in 1990, a key goal outlined in state law. This progress has come about through thousands of employers and Washington families changing their behavior to reduce energy use. A typical example is Inland Empire Distribution Systems Inc. (IEDS), which has provided public and contract warehousing services to the Pacific Northwest since its establishment in 1983.

IEDS is a privately operated third party logistics (3PL) service provider with operations in Spokane and Pasco. The company focuses on four market sectors: industrial, forestry, chemical, and consumer products. IEDS is also the premier railroad transloader with BNSF and Union Pacific Railroads. It offers other services including vendor managed inventory programs, packaging, foreign trade zone, and transportation and freight management. In short, they keep the economy going by keeping products moving.

IEDS is a leader in improving Washington’s environment. The organization has accomplished this by cutting its energy use and carbon emissions, reducing fuel use, and expanding recycling programs. It has implemented revolutionary business practices that are sustainable and energy efficient.

In January 2015, IEDS installed electronic on-board recording devices in their trucks. This allows the company to track real-time drive and vehicle performance information to optimize delivery routes and reduce overall fuel usage. In the first two months after the installation, the company reduced engine idle time by 40 percent and increased mileage per gallon by 8 percent. This move will decrease fuel use by 3,780 gallons. With the overwhelming majority of carbon emissions coming from the transportation sector, this kind of progress makes an impact.

The Washington Climate Collaborative is committed to identifying, developing, and deploying solutions to protect our environment for generations to come. The leadership shown by companies like IEDS is the type of thing that will help us achieve our state carbon emission goals.

On July 28, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee announced that he would instruct the Department of Ecology (DOE) to set caps on carbon emissions. This comes after his proposed cap and trade tax plan failed to gain traction in the Legislature.

While we applaud the governor’s efforts to reduce carbon emissions, we disagree with this newest top-down regulatory scheme. We are short on details, but what we do know signals that the governor would put limits on the amount of allowable carbon emissions. Employers who anticipate they will exceed those limits would be expected to trade credits amongst themselves or purchase credits.

One of the major concerns we have with this plan is the one-size-fits-all approach it would conceivably take. Some industries, such as paper production or food processing, are just more energy intensive than others, which we’ve addressed in a previous post. If they are to be held to the same standards across the board, it will quickly diminish their competitiveness especially in industries that are heavily dependent on trade.

Industry is leading the way. They aren’t hiding their heads in the sand, but instead suggesting that there’s a collaborative approach to reducing carbon emissions. In fact, according to the US Environmental Protection Agency, carbon emissions from Washington-based industry decreased 21% from 1990 to 2011. Our state is on the right track. Only by working together can we accomplish our shared environmental goals.

Shields Bag & Printing Co. has been a staple in Washington since its establishment in 1935 when Frank Shields opened a small print shop in Yakima. Frank and his sons built a commercial printing business before expanding into flexible packaging in the mid-1950s. Operating as a family-owned business for more than 75 years, the company provides a variety of high quality products from food packaging to heavy-duty bags.

Shields Bag & Printing Company’s full-color printing processes use solvent-based inks, which contain volatile organic compounds (VOCs), that in high quantities can be harmful if absorbed into the air. However, the company believes “that helping to maintain a healthy environment is one of our primary responsibilities.” In order to combat VOC emissions, the company has focused its resources in an energy-intensive combustion process called a Regenerative Thermal Oxidizer (RTO). RTOs have 99 percent efficiency in destroying VOCs while recovering 97 percent of the heat generated in the process.

Shields Bag & Printing Co. implemented RTOs in August 2014 and is impressed with the benefits thus far. Although RTOs have significant initial capital costs, the potential for lower ongoing operating costs justify the investment. Most importantly, RTOs reduce the company’s carbon footprint.

Shields Bag & Printing Co. estimates these new practices will save enough natural gas to heat more than 325 homes and enough electricity to power over 600 homes each year. The company expects to reduce carbon emissions by 1,500 tons each year while reducing nitrogen oxide by two tons.

The type of leadership shown by Shields Bag & Printing Co. has dramatically driven down CO2 emissions in Washington State. According to the latest U.S. Environmental Protection Agency data, emissions from the Industrial sector are now 21% below 1990 levels. This progress can be traced back to thousands of businesses that are committed to preserving the beauty of Washington for future generations.

On May 19, Gov. Jay Inslee joined his West Coast colleagues Jerry Brown of California and Kate Brown of Oregon in committing to a 35-year plan to achieve an 80 to 95 percent reduction below 1990 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emission levels in his state of Washington. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) represents a first-of-its-kind agreement between 12 U.S. states and countries around the world. It’s the type of goal nobody can disagree with: aspirational, values-driven, and utterly detached from a road map to accomplishment.

It’s worth noting that Washington’s current GHG reduction goal for 2050 is 50 percent below 1990 levels. So, the governor is pledging to increase our level of ambition by at least 60 percent (50 percent below 1990 levels in 2050 under current law versus 80 to 95 percent below under his new MOU). He intends to do this through the following measures:

Updating the state’s limits on carbon pollution to reflect the latest science

Ending coal-fired electricity generation in Washington and reducing use of coal-fired power imported from other states

Increased building energy efficiency and renewable energy

More zero-emission vehicles, cleaner fuels and transit

Establishing a cap-and-trade carbon pollution market program

The update to the state’s carbon limits seems innocuous enough as they already exist in law, but they’d need to be increased. On the second issue, he’s essentially taking credit for something already happening: the decommissioning of the only remaining coal-fired plant in Washington. The TransAlta plant in Centralia will see its first boiler shuttered in 2020 followed by the other boiler in 2025.

Items three and four are already major parts of our existing carbon reduction strategies, which have contributed mightily to driving carbon emissions below 1990 levels already. On items one through four, you’d be hard-pressed to find any Washingtonian who wouldn’t embrace a call to continuously reduce air emissions and find collaborative ways to empower people to do their part. It’s the Washington way.

That leaves a “carbon pollution market program,” which continues to be the one hammer in the governor’s toolbox of carbon reduction solutions. Unfortunately, his proposed cap-and-trade system has generated almost no support in the Washington State Legislature, and we don’t expect him to be selling an 80 percent reduction proposal anytime soon. Why? It’s simple economics, as described by his own Office of Financial Management (OFM).

During the governor’s Carbon Emission Reduction Taskforce process, OFM economists presented their analysis on what it would require to meet the current law goal of a 25 percent reduction in GHG emissions by 2035. Their analysis shows that the price of a gallon of gas would have to increase by $0.51 by 2020 and $1.47 by 2035 above price projections. Natural gas would increase by 23.1 percent by 2020 and 59.3 percent by 2035 above price projections. Remember, however, that current law targets are 60 percent below his new MOU. So, the impact to families, farms, and employers would be felt well beyond even these dramatic price increases.

The energy price increases the governor would need to mandate in order to meet the projected reduction targets in his MOU would dramatically constrain job opportunities. Energy Strategies modeled OFM’s “high-price scenario” (Figure 22) that was presented at the CERT meeting last fall to analyze the impact to employment. Their conclusion was that driving the cap and trade price to the level OFM suggested to meet current law targets would result in 242,141 fewer Washington jobs annually than under baseline projections. In manufacturing, particularly, you simply cannot drive up energy prices by over 20 percent and not drive down investment in Washington.

This is not lost on the governor. Despite his assertions that his cap-and-trade bill would only hit “big polluters,” OFM said it would immediately increase the price of gas by $0.12 per gallon. If that proposal is having a hard time winning support, surely his MOU to increase that by a factor of four will as well.

All of these declarations make for good press releases, but what do they really accomplish? There is so much more that Washington is doing and will continue to do to lead in the area of carbon reduction, and there is a broad coalition of stakeholders willing to build support for those policies. We wish the governor would spend more time carving a pathway to a bipartisan consensus on carbon reductions here at home, and spend less time making international declarations.

By now, it’s clear to everybody that there’s a lack of support in the Washington State Legislature for the Governor’s complex and costly cap and trade proposal. Rather than let another year slip away without making further progress on policies designed to reduce carbon emissions, we hope the Governor and legislative leaders will seize the opportunity to lead.

Earlier this year, we laid out a number of high-level recommendations for addressing carbon reductions and followed that up with specific endorsements of bills we’d like to see enacted. We believe that any number of these proposals enjoy broad, bipartisan support and, if enacted, will result in meaningful reductions to carbon emissions.

Washington’s already low-carbon economy is getting cleaner. That is our clear trendline and much of it is due to the deployment of new technologies, more energy efficient homes and buildings, and low-carbon transportation options and energy generation. There’s an answer to our question about how we collectively reduce carbon emissions. It’s working together to build on this success by adopting new and better solutions for Washington families, farms, and employers. They hold the key to our state’s progress.

We urge leaders in both parties to find common ground on carbon reduction policies this year. Our coalition is ready to work with the Legislature to build support among a broad spectrum of stakeholders in order to make this happen. Kicking the can down the road is not the right solution when there are actions that can be taken now.